P
pnewton
Guest
Now that you mention it, our school, OLQP also offers under one species.
- Status
J
janeway529
Guest
“In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Communion under both kinds, the Body and Blood of Christ, is normative on Sundays and holy days – as well as at weekday Masses.”
la-archdiocese.org/org/worship/guidelines/Pages/communion.aspx
There are exceptions to the norm, for due reason. I don’t think it’s ever been strictly or rigidly enforced.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
That is really a very broad statement…and one that isn’t necessarily true. I’m not sure how wanting to understand something or disagreeing with something automatically makes you a liberal.
For example, there are VERY good theological reasons for no women priest. I’m totally fine with that-in fact I don’t want to see women priest.
Christ did not call is to be lemmings and blindly follow everyone off a cliff. It’s also one thing to keep obedience-and understand it’s within the pastors authority, even if you disagree with it. It’s a whole other thing to start a huge upset at a parish because of it. But people are allowed to disagree.
I’m not sure what value your comment adds to the discussion…
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe he has any more authority to say women can only distribute the Precious Blood than he could say that only blue-eyed people can distribute the Precious Body.
That is an absurd abuse of power.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No.
He cannot do this, anymore than he could say that no African Americans can be EMHC.
C
Corki
Guest
He would be perfectly within his authority to say only men could be EMHCs but not to say that only male EMHCs can distribute the host? That doesn’t seem right.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. Because theologically there is absolutely NO REASON that he would say men can do both but women can’t.
Theologically, he has a reason (albeit a weak one, IMHO) to say that only men can be EMHC.
Either both men and women can do both. Or only men can do both.
But not men can do both and women can only do one.
That’s absurd.
C
Corki
Guest
You may not agree with his reasoning but that doesn’t mean he cannot do it that way. There is no theological or canonical reason he cannot chose whoever he wants for each of the “jobs” during Mass. The choice of individuals to be readers, EMHCs, altar servers, sacristans, etc. is entirely the pastor’s. There are only a few “rules” - he can’t exclude males categorically as altar servers and he cannot select a female to be an instituted acolyte. Other than that, it’s his choice. He doesn’t have to justify his choices and he can chose who ever he wants as long as he doesn’t chose someone who is ineligible to fulfill the duties.
The only problem I have with what this pastor did is that he announced his preference. If he had just quietly scheduled or selected women for the cup and men for the ciborium, it would not have been a big deal and probably not even noticed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, yes. In one sense you are correct.
Just like a pastor could choose only blue-eyed people to serve as EMHC and only men with large adam’s apples to be lectors…but it would not be a judicious and pastoral decision.
Theologically, there is no reason that a woman can distribute one Species, but not the other.
No reason at all.
You are correct.
And if a pastor decided to refuse to let African Americans be EMHC I suppose it would be licit, but I think the entire Catholic community ought to be admonishing him for this.
And by admonish, I mean: read him the riot act.
Probably.
P
phil19034
Guest
Have you been able to follow up on this with your pastor? I strongly feel that there must be something else going on regarding the female lay ministers.Last week all of the Dominican priests at my parish were replaced with “conservative” diocesan priests. (This has been quite controversial and many longtime members have left the parish. My parish could definitely use prayers.) Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood. I was quite confused by this, and I don’t believe I’ve seen this at any other parish. Does anyone know what this is about? Is this the traditional way, and if so, what is the meaning behind it?
Which diocese do you live in?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, how is he going to stop a woman from distributing the Precious Body when she is distributing the Precious Blood?
C
Corki
Guest
That is why I have been careful to refer to host/cup or cup/ciborium.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So what reason would there be, since a woman is permitted by this priest to distribute the Precious Body anyway?That is why I have been careful to refer to host/cup or cup/ciborium.
It makes no sense theologically, morally, socially.
The only way it fits into the arena of reality is that it is permissible ecclesiastically.
And that criterion needs some sort of rationale.
C
Corki
Guest
No argument from me as long as admonish/read him the riot act takes the form of “I respectfully disagree with your decision” and not “you can’t do that unless you explain to me why”., but I think the entire Catholic community ought to be admonishing him for this.
And by admonish, I mean: read him the riot act.
Probably.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, yeah.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’d like to know if anyone can propose what the reason would be for a woman to not be permitted to distribute the Precious Body? Oh, wait. She is permitted to distribute the Precious Body, but only if it’s in a cup.
What in the world?
I don’t understand.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
In the case of the hypothetical she used, which was one of blatant racism, I think “I respectfully disagree with you decision” would be far too mild of a response. A proportionate response in keeping with the responsibility of all Christians to oppose evil would be along the lines of “Father, you are engaging in the wickedness of racism. If you do not assure me right now that you will immediately repent of this grave and scandalous sin, I have no choice other than to call the bishop immediately following your refusal to assure me of your repentance.”
C
Corki
Guest
Have you ever, in any of the time since EMHCs were instituted, heard of a priest who decided to exclude African Americans from being chosen? That’s, to use PRmerger’s own words, “absurd”. My comment, suggesting charity rather than prideful confrontation, was addressing the original topic of women in liturgical roles.
Even if we were living in bizzaro land and your hypothetical situation occurred, your suggested conversation would be very lacking in respect and would probably kill your chance of having the bishop on your side should you call him. Chanceries don’t usually take too kindly to priests being verbally berated by parishioners, even if they do something that is clearly wrong. But hey, if you are comfortable calling your pastor “wicked” and accusing him of “grave and scandalous sin” who am I to stop you?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
No, I’ve never heard of a priest excluding EMHCs on the basis of race, and would be shocked were I to encounter such a thing–and I’m generally shock-proof. If such a hypothetical were to happen, how would you respond to such a scandalous evil? I’m sorry, but “Father, I respectfully disagree with your decision” is an inadequate response to such obviously evil conduct.Have you ever, in any of the time since EMHCs were instituted, heard of a priest who decided to exclude African Americans from being chosen? That’s, to use PRmerger’s own words, “absurd”. My comment, suggesting charity rather than prideful confrontation, was addressing the original topic of women in liturgical roles.
Even if we were living in bizzaro land and your hypothetical situation occurred, your suggested conversation would be very lacking in respect and would probably kill your chance of having the bishop on your side should you call him. Chanceries don’t usually take too kindly to priests being verbally berated by parishioners, even if they do something that is clearly wrong. But hey, if you are comfortable calling your pastor “wicked” and accusing him of “grave and scandalous sin” who am I to stop you?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
In such a case, the chancery and the bishop should be far more concerned about the publicly scandalous and grievously sinful decision of the priest.
- Status